Personally I think this should be reported under the SPAM and off topic forums. Someone asked a question and that person personally attacked. The question apparently is chopped liver. This is one of the reasons why I don't post much here; all you friendly people.

wtf are you on? Territories is key, but bonuses are nearly just as important. This isn't classic map where attacking neutrals doesn't pay off. You run over a neutral 3 in world 2.1 you usaully get it back the next turn, while the other person that took a territory might change the territory count +/- 1 with him/you.

wtf are you on? Territories is key, but bonuses are nearly just as important. This isn't classic map where attacking neutrals doesn't pay off. You run over a neutral 3 in world 2.1 you usaully get it back the next turn, while the other person that took a territory might change the territory count +/- 1 with him/you.

You don't play a lot of 1v1 games, do you? Using your armies to take a bonus from neutral is not only a waste of armies (which you will probably get back), it's a waste of a turn, which you won't get back. You're letting your opponent attack you with their full strength for two rounds, while you fight back with a reduced force. A territory bonus, with that size map, is worth more than a continent bonus, because it's harder to break, and it negatively impacts your opponent. 5 territories (less than average if you have 11 to deploy) gives an effective bonus of 3, because you gain 1/2 while your opponent loses them. If you can take territories from your opponent which give you a bonus, then do that, but don't beat up neutral for one.

wtf are you on? Territories is key, but bonuses are nearly just as important. This isn't classic map where attacking neutrals doesn't pay off. You run over a neutral 3 in world 2.1 you usaully get it back the next turn, while the other person that took a territory might change the territory count +/- 1 with him/you.

You don't play a lot of 1v1 games, do you? Using your armies to take a bonus from neutral is not only a waste of armies (which you will probably get back), it's a waste of a turn, which you won't get back. You're letting your opponent attack you with their full strength for two rounds, while you fight back with a reduced force. A territory bonus, with that size map, is worth more than a continent bonus, because it's harder to break, and it negatively impacts your opponent. 5 territories (less than average if you have 11 to deploy) gives an effective bonus of 3, because you gain 1/2 while your opponent loses them. If you can take territories from your opponent which give you a bonus, then do that, but don't beat up neutral for one.

Which only applies to smaller maps, such as classic (or whatever the hell it is now). On larger maps such as world 2.1, taking bonuses is key. Killing 3 neutrals to get a bonus - of course not. Killing a single neutral to get a bonus back the next turn - of course. Using the map to your advantage in terms of neutral walls and such is where you pick which bonuses you'll go after. If you take a bonus and kill a neutral which is bordering your enemy, you're fucked obviously because they'll hit it back. However such is not the case on world 2.1 in various situations. Many situations you can kill 1 enemy and 1 neutral and secure a +3/4 bonus, and then a neutral wall exists between you and your enemy. You then have that bonus for the rest of hte game virtually. Since world 2.1 games last a significantly long time, unlike classic where the difference between a +3 vs +5 deployment is huge, in world 2.1 you're getting around +15 vs +17. Those 2 armies become much more significant and you can acquire bonuses as a result.

The opposite is true: on smaller maps, you should get a bonus, even if it means killing neutrals. On larger maps, you shouldn't bother. That's just how the numbers work (taking 3 from your opponent reduces their deployment, but only until they have 11 territories, which happens a lot faster on a smaller map, so the territory gains aren't worth as much).

Your inexperience is showing when you claim World 2.1 games last a long time. With an evenly matched opponent, you might have a longer battle (in your case, where both of you attack neutrals and build up an army in one continent), but most of the time, the winner is determined in the first 4 rounds. Lets play some games and we'll see how well your theory works.

BaldAdonis wrote:The opposite is true: on smaller maps, you should get a bonus, even if it means killing neutrals. On larger maps, you shouldn't bother. That's just how the numbers work (taking 3 from your opponent reduces their deployment, but only until they have 11 territories, which happens a lot faster on a smaller map, so the territory gains aren't worth as much).

Your inexperience is showing when you claim World 2.1 games last a long time. With an evenly matched opponent, you might have a longer battle (in your case, where both of you attack neutrals and build up an army in one continent), but most of the time, the winner is determined in the first 4 rounds. Lets play some games and we'll see how well your theory works.

Oh I definitely should have clarified it's only good to take neutrals when you play freestyle as you can't take advantage of the newly gained bonuses in sequential... in sequential only attack neutrals if you're playing chained/adjacent and you only need to kill 1 more territory and you're opponent is isolated from an area. Don't deploy more than 2 armies generally to kill neutrals to take bonuses although still do it depending on circumstance.

BaldAdonis wrote:The opposite is true: on smaller maps, you should get a bonus, even if it means killing neutrals. On larger maps, you shouldn't bother. That's just how the numbers work (taking 3 from your opponent reduces their deployment, but only until they have 11 territories, which happens a lot faster on a smaller map, so the territory gains aren't worth as much).

Your inexperience is showing when you claim World 2.1 games last a long time. With an evenly matched opponent, you might have a longer battle (in your case, where both of you attack neutrals and build up an army in one continent), but most of the time, the winner is determined in the first 4 rounds. Lets play some games and we'll see how well your theory works.

Are you talking about 1v1 or 8 players free for all? I have played several World 2.1 games and they never end early (which in my opinion is good by the way).

wtf are you on? Territories is key, but bonuses are nearly just as important. This isn't classic map where attacking neutrals doesn't pay off. You run over a neutral 3 in world 2.1 you usaully get it back the next turn, while the other person that took a territory might change the territory count +/- 1 with him/you.

I dont know what your rant about neutral territories is about but I think what Fabled meant is that in 1v1 there are so many territories that the reinforcements are much greater for holding a large number of territories rather than a small number of bonuses. I dont know if the following will make much sense but i think it is more important to stop your opponent from getting all the territory reinforcements than you getting them. Dont ask why or what I mean.. I am not really sure....Anyways, that being said, territories is number one... get as many as you can but try to get key ones that stop your opponent from getting bonuses and allow to get bonuses (if your opponent chooses not to attack them which he should if he is any good).

I was misunderstanding what he said - generally we have the exact same strategy. We played 5 games 1v1, I would say all 5 had extreme dice fluctuations and were determined by the dice. He won 3, I won 2. I didn't even come close to outplaying him in the 2 I won, as in one of the games I went something along the lines of 19-5 within the first few turns, and in one of the games I lost over 5 turns he went something like 27-8. Dice are such bullshit in 1v1 if both players have proper strategy.